New paper finds climate skeptical blogosphere is important source of expertise, reinterpretation, & scientific knowledge production
From The Hockey Schtick:
A paper published on April 5th in Global Environmental Change finds the climate skeptical blogosphere serves as an alternative network of scientific knowledge production, and “are key protagonists in a process of attempted expert knowledge de-legitimisation and contestation, acting not only as translators between scientific research and lay audiences, but, in their reinterpretation of existing climate science knowledge claims, are acting themselves as alternative public sites of expertise for a climate sceptical audience.”
According to the authors, “A network of 171 individual blogs is identified, with three blogs in particular found to be the most central: Climate Audit, JoNova and Watts Up With That. These blogs predominantly focus on the scientific element of the climate debate, providing either a direct scientifically-based challenge to mainstream climate science, or a critique of the conduct of the climate science system.
This overt scientific framing, as opposed to explicitly highlighting differences in values, politics, or ideological worldview, appears to be an important contributory factor in the positioning of the most central blogs.”
The abstract appears to be complimentary to the climate skeptic blogosphere as science-based sources of “expertise”, “scientific knowledge production”, and “reinterpretation”, as opposed to prior papers characterization of climate skeptic blogs as “deniers” of climate change and climate science.
 |
| WUWT is somewhere in the center there |
- •
-
The climate sceptical blogosphere is identified as a network of 171 blogs.
- •
-
An overt science framing appears to contribute to the most central blogs’ positions.
- •
-
The most central blogs may be seen as key nodes in an alternative knowledge network.
- •
-
They are alternative public sites of expertise for a climate sceptical audience.
Abstract
While mainstream scientific knowledge production has been extensively examined in the academic literature, comparatively little is known about alternative networks of scientific knowledge production. Online sources such as blogs are an especially under-investigated site of knowledge contestation. Using degree centrality and node betweenness tests from social network analysis, and thematic content analysis of individual posts, this research identifies and critically examines the climate sceptical blogosphere and investigates whether a focus on particular themes contributes to the positioning of the most central blogs. A network of 171 individual blogs is identified, with three blogs in particular found to be the most central:Climate Audit, JoNova and Watts Up With That. These blogs predominantly focus on the scientific element of the climate debate, providing either a direct scientifically-based challenge to mainstream climate science, or a critique of the conduct of the climate science system. This overt scientific framing, as opposed to explicitly highlighting differences in values, politics, or ideological worldview, appears to be an important contributory factor in the positioning of the most central blogs. It is suggested that these central blogs are key protagonists in a process of attempted expert knowledge de-legitimisation and contestation, acting not only as translators between scientific research and lay audiences, but, in their reinterpretation of existing climate science knowledge claims, are acting themselves as alternative public sites of expertise for a climate sceptical audience.
Jo Nova had a writeup about it last November while the paper was being submitted for publication, which is worth reading again.
From the paper:
Two tests for degree centrality (Freeman’s and Bonacich’s approach) were chosen as ‘very simple, but often very effective measure[s] of an actor’s centrality’ (Hanneman and Riddle 2005: 148). Freeman’s approach shows the centrality of a node based on its degree, that is, the number of connections a node has. In this case, the rating score represents the number of other blogs linking to that blog on their respective blog rolls.
The blog with the highest in-degree rating according to Freeman’s approach is Watts Up With That (WUWT), authored by California-based Anthony Watts, with 54% of the climate sceptical blogosphere linking to WUWT. WUWT itself claims it is the ‘world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change’ and the results of this test appear to support this assertion.
Freeman’s approach may also be used to analyse out-degree linkages, that is, examining which blogs’ blog-rolls are the most extensive. While out-degree score is usually seen as a measure of how influential an actor is in a network, in this case, a blog has no control over whether or not it is included in another blogs’ blog-roll. It is thus possible that out-degree score in the context of a blogosphere may instead be regarded as an indicator of desire to enhance the network, for example, by ensuring readers are aware that there are multiple other blogs that support the position of the original blog. Interestingly, only two blogs
show both high in- and out-degree linkages (WUWT and Bishop Hill). Tables 3 and 4 show the top 10 Freeman’s approach scores for in- and out-degree linkage.
An open access version of the paper is available here: http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publications/WorkingPapers/Papers/120-29/Mapping-the-climate-sceptical-blogosphere.pdf
Given that it is from the Grantham Institute, I wonder how Bob Ward is taking the news?
On a side note, there’s no “network” of 171 blogs. We don’t have a group, guild, or any sort of organization. Her network claim is little more than an identification of like minded people that operate climate related blogs. And, I don’t think about the blogroll that much and I doubt it has the significance she assigns to it.
Even so, thanks for the props.
Jeff L says:
April 9, 2014 at 6:43 am
I like the conclusion that a focus on science keeps WUWT at the center !
Not mention the fact that the view it presents of the inquiring public as vastly more capable of critical thought than one might gather from politically oriented blogs.
Jim Hunt says:
April 10, 2014 at 2:45 am
… I hail from Soggy South West England …
that explains everything! 🙂
@Anthony says: April 10, 2014 at 11:13 am
I gave you the quote. Here’s a link to commentary about what was going on at the time:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/07/tough-times-for-sea-ice-melt-enthusiasts/
No need to look anything else up! Accurate, or not?
I wonder if, during the Church-Galileo or Wegener-Simpson scientific battles, anyone bothered to note on which side of the then-“blogosphere” their supporters lie.
WUWT is the center of the entire web, not just the skeptic blogs 😀
Well, I’d like to think I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss in such a condescending manner, issues raised by someone who pointed out such an obvious gaping hole in the sea ice data you present, and attempt to draw conclusions from.
Can any reasonable conclusions be drawn about the amount of coke in my coke bottle, by measuring the surface area of the top of the liquid?
@jim Hunt says:
April 10, 2014 at 8:33 am
“As you can see from the historical record:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/watts-up-with-the-maximum-trend/#Gregg
I asked on more than one occasion for someone to supply a link to “A long term (let’s say 30 years or more) graph for any measure of Arctic sea ice “quantity” showing anything other than a trend in the direction of the bottom right hand corner.” Nobody did. Nobody suggested looking at the WUWT sea ice page either, presumably because no graphs fitting my description can be found on there.
Q.E.D. ?”
Mr Hunt, I read this post, and would like to point out several apparent errors:
1. “I asked on more than one occasion for someone to supply a link”. Once again Mr Hunt, I’ve read everything on on the link provided (as it currently stands), and while I see criticism regarding the lack of a graph, I cannot see a single request for a link on your part.
2. “Nobody did.” This is technically correct, nobody did provide you with a link, but is very misleading, whether by mistake or design, when you consider point 3 (below).
3. “Nobody suggested looking at the WUWT sea ice page either…” As I’ve pointed out to you in a previous post, Michael D did just that in comments posted to your article at 4:01 pm on April 9, 2014 – well before you made this post.
4. “…presumably because no graphs fitting my description can be found on there.” The page to which Micheal D referred has a graph with a text description “Sea Ice Extent – Change in Maximum, Mean and Minimum”, showing data for Actic ice from 1979. It seems to me to be exactly the graph the absence of which you were bemoaning.
5. Since you maintain that you are requesting a link, it is apparent that you concerns regarding the purported lack of a graph are no longer confined to the original WUWT article (to which you link in your blog article), but extend to the WUWT website as a whole. It is disappointing to me that you maintain this criticism despite apparently having done little or no research before publishing the criticism (a Google search of “watts up with that” + “sea ice” returns the relevant page as the first match). Did you ask Anthony Watts before publishing, to give him an opportunity to correct your misunderstanding?
6. You justify your maintenance of this position on the basis that you were not spoon-fed the link to disprove it, despite there being no record of your request at your link; and you continue to espouse this view in spite of the fact that you have had the directions to the requested graph pointed out to on at least two occasions before you made this post.
At my count, that’s six errors in a five-line post. I’ve not included the “Q.E.D.” at the end as another line, but of course that would increase the error count to seven.
If I’m mistaken in any of this, please let me know. And I think that you still owe Micheal D either thanks or an explanation.
Apologies for the typos in my post of 2:00am – typing really isn’t my strong suit. hopefully the content and meaning is still discernible.
@GreggB says: April 11, 2014 at 2:00 am
All my comments you mention in the points you raise, and the “historical record” I mentioned, refer to the WUWT thread to be found here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/25/arctic-sea-ice-appears-to-have-reached-maximum-and-other-ice-observations/
The last comment in that conversation was from one @Snow White on March 28, 2014 at 7:59 am. Michael D (please note the correct spelling) is conspicuous only by his absence from that conversation. Please reconsider your numbered points in that light.
@jim Hunt says:
April 11, 2014 at 6:40 am:
I’ve read your post, and here is my considered response:
You stated in your post of April 10, 2014 at 8:33 am:
“As you can see from the historical record:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/watts-up-with-the-maximum-trend/#Gregg“.
I took you at your word, and referred to the link you yourself provided in crafting my response. I’ve re-read my post, with reference to the ‘historical record’ to which you refer, and my comments stand.
Then, in your post of 6:40 this morning, you’ve stated:
“All my comments you mention in the points you raise, and the “historical record” I mentioned, refer to the WUWT thread to be found here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/25/arctic-sea-ice-appears-to-have-reached-maximum-and-other-ice-observations/”
This is a completely different “historical record”, on a completely different website. In neither post do you acknowledge the other source. You also fail to acknowledge that you’ve changed the ‘historical record’ to which you refer when you request that I reconsider my post and imply that I’m mistaken in my views.
Your changing of history is either an error, or deliberate. If deliberate, I can’t think of anything other than deception as the motive.
If it is an error, then you can easily set things right by apologising for the error and allowing others to waste their time responding to positions you now imply you no longer hold.
As you can see from my post of 5:19am, I apologised for the typographical errors in my post (of which misspelling Michael D’s name was only one of many – sorry Michael). This was before your post pointing out my misspelling. Hopefully you’ll be mature enough to manage an apology too, if your conscience dictates that it’s warranted.
If you remain silent on the issue, then I will leave it to the readers to judge your motivations. Further, it is all but impossible to have a rational debate with someone who not only changes what they claim to have said, but refuses to acknowledge that they have changed.
Dear Gregg,
Please try this simple experiment for yourself.
1. Follow your first link.
2. Scroll to the top of the page.
3. Follow my first link
4. Do you see a “historical record” of any sort?
5. Does it bear any resemblance to your second link?
6. Can you change it in any way?
7. Can I change it in any way?
8. Can Anthony change it in any way?
I await your response to my questions 4-8 with interest. A simple yes or no in each case will suffice
Thanks in anticipation,
Jim.
@jim Hunt says:
April 11, 2014 at 6:40 am:
I’ve read your post, and this is my considered response:
you stated in your post of April 10, 2014 at 8:33 am:
“As you can see from the historical record:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/watts-up-with-the-maximum-trend/#Gregg”
I read the ‘historical record’ at the link you yourself provided, and crafted my response accordingly. I have re-read my post, and my comments of April 10, 2014 at 8:33 am stand.
Then, at 6:40 am today, you state:
“All my comments you mention in the points you raise, and the “historical record” I mentioned, refer to the WUWT thread to be found here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/25/arctic-sea-ice-appears-to-have-reached-maximum-and-other-ice-observations/”
This ‘historical record’ is a completely different page to the one in your earlier post, and in fact a completely different website. You do not refer to the other record in either post. You also fail to acknowledge that you have changed what you now consider to be the ‘historical record’ when you asked me to reconsider my points and implied that my views were therefore mistaken.
this is either an error, or deliberate. if it is an error, you can easily set things right by apologising for the error and allowing others to waste their time responding to positions you imply you no longer hold. You will note that I have apologised at 5:19am for my typographical errors (of which misspelling Michael D’s name was only one – sorry Michael). Hopefully you are mature enough to do the same if your conscience dictates that it is warranted.
If it is deliberate, then I can think of no motivation other than deception. Further, it is all but impossible to have a rational debate with someone who not only changes what they claim to have said, but refused to acknowledge that they have changed it.
In any event, you were pointed in the direction of the graph you sought, and I STILL think you owe Michael thanks or an explanation, regardless of where you currently state that ‘history’ can be found.
(Moderator – if this substantially duplicates a post from a few minutes ago, please delete it – when I hit ‘post comment’, it simply disappeared without any “your post is awaiting moderation” message).
Even if I were to take you at (the most recent version of) your word, and reconsidered my points in light of BOTH pages, then here is my reviewed list:
1. “I asked on more than one occasion for someone to supply a link”. On the new “historical record”, I can find one occasion (not more than one) request for a link where you’ve said “Unfortunately CryoSat doesn’t have a whole lot to say about the volume of sea ice in the Arctic just at the moment, unless you can provide a link to some data that I’m unaware of?” This is hardly the specific request for “A long term (let’s say 30 years or more) graph for any measure of Arctic sea ice “quantity” (your quotation marks) referred to in your post of April 10 at 8:33am. However, if this is the request to which you refer, you have my apologies – and further apologies if there are other requests for links I’ve missed. Perhaps there’s a pseudonym of yours that I don’t know?
2. My comments regarding your apparent error still stand, even with reference to both versions of the “historical record”.
3. My comments regarding your apparent error still stand, even with reference to both versions of the “historical record”.
4. My comments regarding your apparent error still stand, even with reference to both versions of the “historical record”.
5. My comments regarding your apparent error still stand, even with reference to both versions of the “historical record”.
6. “You justify your maintenance of this position on the basis that you were not spoon-fed the link to disprove it, despite there being no record of your request at your link…”. This is correct in relation to the old “history”, and substantially correct in relation to the new “history” (acknowledging that you made a request for a link to Arctic sea ice volumes in terms considerably more vague than you later asserted).
“…you continue to espouse this view in spite of the fact that you have had the directions to the requested graph pointed out to on at least two occasions before you made this post.” My comments regarding your apparent error still stand, even with reference to both versions of the “historical record”.
So, not significantly different, regardless of whether we use your “historical record” A, “historical record”B, or both.
I STILL think courtesy would demand that you offer Michael D thanks or an explanation.
@jim Hunt says:
April 11, 2014 at 10:37 am
I’m sorry, my attempts to follow your steps fell at the first hurdle: “1. Follow your first link.” I haven’t posted any links; I’ve simply been going to the links you yourself provided, and commenting accordingly.
As a result, I’m unsure what you’re getting at with questions 4-8. To the extent that both the links you’ve provided at various times are blog pages with comments, I suppose they are “historical records”. It’s your description, after all.
I think that what you’re asking for has been covered in my post of 10:59am. I’ll let that stand.
I am surprised Roy Spencer is ranked so low considering he is a ….climate scientist.
Follow-up: Alinsky tactics require identification of the enemy before attacking. This looks to simply be the analysis.
Oh! Epiphany! I think we may be able to come to an agreement, Mr hunt.
Are you saying that having gone to the first link you provided, I should then have taken the initiative to find and follow the embedded link to the WUWT page on the Arctic sea ice article?
@GreggB – Oh frabjous day!
I endeavour to fill all my blog posts with useful links to original data and other sources, and not merely screenshots and opinions. Hence yes, I had rather anticipated that in all the circumstances you would have explored at least the first link in the article in question at one point or another.
Excellent! Agreement reached! It’s taken a while, but we’re finally making progress.
now that we’ve established that you hold to the principle that people should have the basic initiative to should look for links and follow them, and given the fact that the sea ice page has a link on the WUWT home page (and can be found in seconds in Google, as I said earlier), can you PLEASE follow it, and stop complaining that the graph doesn’t exist and nobody gave you a link?
[snip – off topic this thread isn’t about sea ice -mod]
@mod says: April 12, 2014 at 1:17 am
However amongst other things it is about what Christopher Monckton described as “provid[ing] a high level of scientific information”!
If I’m denied a voice here, how and where do you suggest I respond to GreggB’s wholly unjustified accusations? Are you going to “snip” those too?
171 blog sites identified. That’s enough to form a meaningful collective, if they get it together and do something. The opposition is a well-armed global leviathan, currently being sniped at by midgets with pea-guns and agreeing with themselves on social media.
@mod says: April 12, 2014 at 1:17 am
I believe that Jim Hunt has behaved in a way consistent with intellectual laziness, has apparently shifted positions in mid argument, and has held me to a standard of research which, had he applied this same standard to himself, would have rendered the entire exchange unnecessary.
However, on this one point, I agree with him – you should snip my comments too. The entire exchange was born out of his complaints about WUWT’s display of sea ice data.
[Reply: we snip with reluctance. WUWT is one of the most open site anywhere. Unless commenters get way out of line, we let them have their say. ~ mod.]
@GreggB – So you thought you’d just throw in a few more unwarranted accusations whilst having been prevented by @mod from seeing my response to your earlier ones?
@mod – And that’s perfectly OK with you?
[Reply: some moderators go beyond what is necessary. ~ Snr. mod.]
I was agreeing with you, and (gently) chiding the moderator for what I saw as partial application of standards – If your comment got canned, then mine should have been as well. It might surprise you, but I do try to live a principled life. Everything else was simply a summation of points I’d made earlier.
That said, this is getting rather tiresome. I’ll tell you what. Why don’t you post the whole, unedited discourse on your blog, without any commentary whatsoever. It’ll take a little courage, but I’d be happy to let your gentle readers decide for themselves. I’ll leave it in your hands.
@GreggB – It’ll take no courage whatsoever. A quick copy and paste operation requires remarkably little effort, as I’m sure Anthony can confirm. However I continue to maintain that my comments are extremely relevant to a discussion concerning a “central blog predominantly focus[sed] on the scientific element of the climate debate”.
The original graphic is from the IPCC – First Assessment Report.
IPCC PDF
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
Quick peek
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/06/15/ignoring-inconvenient-arctic-data/